The Social Network is a prime example of the old adage – never direct or write a movie when you clearly hate the subject. Director David Fincher best known as the man who brought us Fight Club (a movie I loathe) and Seven (a movie I love) and writer Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) have crafted a well made hit piece on Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg – played by Jesse Eisenberg.
From the moment we first meet Zuckerberg, his girlfriend is breaking up with him because he’s a self-centered jerk and the movie never moves away from this narrative. We never find out what really drives Zuckerberg beyond the fact that he desperately wants to get into an exclusive Harvard Club. Why he wants to get in, is never really explored beyond the fact that it was “exclusive.” Several times the movie hammered the idea home that Zuckerberg doesn’t care about money or social status but then they use his not getting in as one of the many reasons he screwed over his best friend – Eduardo Saverin (credited with co-founding Facebook) who did get in.
The movie clearly takes the viewpoint that Zuckerberg screwed over everyone that he came into contact with and was at times “oblivious” about the fact that he was doing it and on other occasions (by Eisenberg’s reactions) clearly knew what he was doing. Either way it didn’t say much about Zuckerberg as a human being. Sorkin writes Zuckerberg as though he is the ultimate, anti-social douchebag. That is until he meets one of his heroes – the hyperactive founder of Napster Sean Parker. Justin Timberlake does a brilliant job but he portrays Sean as a hyper, paranoid, drugged up hipster who is obsessed with getting back at the establishment who screwed him.
The only people who get any amount of sympathy from the filmmakers are the people who are suing Zuckerberg – namely Saverin (Andrew Garfield) and Winklevoss’ (Armie Hammer) the twins who claimed Zuckerburg stole the Facebook idea from them.
I’ve never met or even seen Zuckerberg speak so I’m going to go on the assumption that he really isn’t Michael Cera in disguise. Eisenberg’s portrayal comes across as what Hollywood imagines a geek to be like. His speech patterns and dialogue seemed so affected that it was distracting and felt like I was watching a performance and not a person that actually exists out in the real world. It’s as if he studied all of Michael Cera’s movies and came up with this portrait of Zuckerburg.
This could have been a truly great movie if Sorkin and Fincher had bothered to take the time to add some sort of balance or texture to Zuckerberg. I liked this as a movie about a fictional character named Mark Zuckerberg, but as a biographical picture it answers the question what happens when you get a bunch of douchebags together to create a movie about another bunch of douchebags – The Social Network.
Final Grade C
EM Review by
Michelle Alexandria
Originally posted 10.02.2010
From the reviewer who thought “Inception” was boring but thoroughly enjoyed “Step Up 3D”!
But my real problem isn’t your terrible taste, it’s your lazy and inept writing:
“…and Winklevoss’ (Josh Pince) the twins who claimed…”
It’s Armie Hammer’s performance and you spelled Josh Pence’s name wrong. Not to mention the sentence is a mess to begin with.
The Eisenberg/Cera jokes have been done to death and on top of that, so much better, but thanks for playing.
Oh, and the movie never takes a single viewpoint; hence the multiple perspectives. That comes across in the deposition room sequences and characters talking about Zuckerberg without Zuckerberg being present (Did you even watch the movie…?)
Finally, calling Fincher and Sorkin “douchebags” is so stunningly childish that I’m not sure how Eclipse Magazine justifies having you as a reviewer.
Okay, I’m done. Have a nice day.
After finding out that zuckerberg did not make fun of a girl’s name and body in a blog post coinciding with “face mash” (though he did write that a girl was a bitch and said he needed a distraction from her) and has been dating a girl for 7 years, I agree with this review. “Every creation story needs a devil,” as sorkin wrote in the screenplay. That’s not true, but without one for this subject, the movie would be a bore. Zuckerberg’s desire to write a good code is on par with Sorkin’s desire to write a good drama: They are okay with screwing people along the way.
You mispelled Eisenberg in the statement “by Esenberg’s reactions.”
It’s called proofreading, Michelle. It’s not difficult
She also couldn’t be bothered to spell the protagonist’s name right (on more than one occasion). Zuckerberg’s spelled with an E not a U.
As much as it pains me to agree with the viewpoint of someone named “Iggier”…Iggy has indeed hit the nail on the head. While the reviewer may have a valid point about whether or not to make a film, if the creators do indeed dislike their subject matter, the sad fact is that the film probably just went over her head.
Thanks for your review. I found it helpful and a lot of reviewers seem to agree with you. It is weird how mean people are on here just because you didn’t like a movie, or agree with them. ooh you used the word douchebag. Sad.
The film’s greatest success was that not one single character was simply a hero/good guy or a villain/douchebag. Each was portrayed with strengths and weaknesses, and if you step into any of the character’s perspectives, you can appreciate that rationale behind their actions. For example, from a certain point of view (Eisenberg’s Zuckerberg), the “screwing over” of his CFO was actually saving the creation (facebook) from someone whose ideas (advertising on the site) and actions (freezing assets) threatened its very existence. Had Saverin gotten his way, facebook wouldn’t exist; Had the Winklevoss’s gotten their way, facebook might not exist – at least from Zuckerberg’s perspective.
So you are incredibly wrong that the character of Zuckerberg is one-dimensional, especially when other reviewers are saying “it’s Eisenberg’s performance that helps make Zuckerberg the most fascinating and complicated movie character since Daniel Day-Lewis’ Daniel Plainview.” (Adam Tobias, Watertown Daily Times). In fact, I think your insistence on dividing the film’s characters up into victims and douchebags, and almost illiterately simple thesis that Sorkin (who wrote the film from three different sides, following court transcripts) and Fincher “hate” Zuckerberg has much more to do with your one-dimensional thinking than with the film which you’re reviewing.
it seems to me that you really wrote this review without any preparation of ur subject. When we read reviews, we are asking for expert opinions on whether a movie is well made or not. Whether the subject of the script is accurate or not depends heavily relatively on how much you know Mark zuckerberg. And since you dont know anything about mark zuckerberg, you dont have the authority to speak on such matter. There are a lot of clips out there showing mark zuckerberg in speeches or events, but instead of spending time researching, you just decided to make you contrarian points and garner attention, it’s sad.
First of all, I do agree with Sorkin’s writing “every creation story needs a devil”, it’s everywhere if you look.
And now we are onto the points of this review.
1. Zuckerberg’s acts did not piss off the girl because he was self-centered. It was because his condescending tone about people’s social/intellectual position. It is 100% self-centered that he had said those things, but just like mark zuckerberg’s character in the movie, i don’t think you understand why he was dumped neither.
2. Just because the movie itself is “stressing” the point that Zuckerberg doesnt’ care about money or social status (i have no idea where you got that point from, except from Eduardo’s character saying that once albeit his little foresight on Zuckerberg’s character), doesn’t mean it’s the real behavior or real people. The writing itself may or may not be accurately portraying Mark Zuckerberg, and you must account for the variables (such as acts that cannot be completely explained, because there is no total insight on what Mark Zuckerberg really thinks about money or social status).
3. This movie’s structured in a way that you can piece together the “evidence” and events leading up to the eventual lawsuits in a nonchronological order. There is no part where one character is designed to garner pure sympathy or hatred. The reasons why they did what they did or got what they got were presented, were you too busy forming your contrarian views to miss them?
4. Mark Zuckerberg’s interviews are everywhere, were you really this lazy that you cannot go through some of them before criticizing filmmakers on not accurately portraying their subjects?
your review is very loosely written and logically unsound. please write carefully in the future.
I completely agree with your review. I thought even the first scene made everyone appear to be a caricature. Maybe I’m biased because i read the recent New Yorker piece about Mark Zucherberg, that was pretty sympathetic, but I felt like Sorkin didn’t even care to explore any other dimensions of his personality (he doesn’t care about money, his background, his past relationships, past successes, etc). What is neat about this story is how it pushes kids into adult situations – with billions of dollars at stake. but, i thought Sorkin didn’t mine that very interesting aspect. but, great ending scene.
thanks for your review, it sounds different and right. I feel the same about it, and I didn’t like Fight Club either, while I liked Seven.
I agree with many people, not only did you assume Jesse Eisenburg as his general character, Michael Cera, but you also pretty much didn’t SEE the movie. Jesse actually broke out of his character in this and seeing his growth was an amazing step. And i’m not entirely sure loving the subject is a need in order to make the movie, from my view point, although clearly the portagonist, Mark Zuckerburg actually felt some what of an antagonist. And the fact that this is a biopic and not a biography should give you some idea that it is exagerated
“Eisenberg’s portrayal comes across as what Hollywood imagines a geek to be like. His speech patterns and dialogue seemed so affected that it was distracting and felt like I was watching a performance and not a person that actually exists out in the real world”
in other words you should view it as if you are viewing a fictional film.
And what is wrong with Justin Timberlake portraying Sean as a “hyper, paranoid, drugged up hipster who is obsessed with getting back at the establishment who screwed him.” when that is exactly how the character was supposed to be portrayed. so I agree with most of the people on the board. And you said Zuckerburg had no personaity and then went on to describe his personality. There are just so mant contradictions in this review and it’s a shame that you helped bring the rotten tomato score down
“The Social Network” is the story of ‘’facebook’. Frenetic, constant flashbacks, and a tale of greed and jealousy. You learn how it got started and evolved plus how egos can be very destructive (and expensive).
GRADE = “B”
this is a ridiculously bad review.
This review makes me question what standard Rottentomatoes applies when selecting “legitimate” movie reviews to include on their site.
Clearly, they need to start setting the bar a little higher.
“This could have been a truly great movie if Sorkin and Fincher had bothered to take the time to add some sort of balance or texture to Zuckerberg”Um, hello, did we watch the same movie? One dimensional? No balance or texture? I found Sorkin’s depiction of Zuckerberg to be downright sympathetic at some points during the movie, particularly in the final scene. Yes, he was an oblivious and arrogant guy who screwed over everyone, but the character was far more layered than that. A fantastically well written and acted movie and I honestly don’t know how you missed that.